In this case, it redirects to Google’s general privacy policy that covers all their services. Anyway Google’s calculator stores a history of all the calculations you did in your account somewhere. So I guess it needs to have a policy stating what they do with that data.

Kinda but Thunderbird is community driven, and spun out into an independent subsidiary.

Laura Chambers, who stepped into an interim CEO role at Mozilla in February, says the company is reinvesting in Firefox after letting it languish in recent years,

It’s sort of amusing to me that Mozilla would let the Firefox browser languish. Is that not the raison d’etre of your entire organization? What are you doing with your time and effort if you are allowing your core product to languish? What would people say if Microsoft said “yeah, we’ve allowed windows to languish in recent years.” What an insane notion.

is-number is a project by John Schlinkert. John has a background in sales and marketing before he became an open source programmer and started creating these types of single function packages. So far he has about 1400 projects. Not all of them are this small, though many are.

He builds a lot of very basic functionality packages. Get the first n values from an array. Sort an array. Set a non-enumerable property on an object. Split a string. Get the length of the longest item in an array. Check if a path ends with some string. It goes on and on.

If you browse through it’s not uncommon to find packages that do nothing but call another package of his. For example, is-valid-path provides a function to check if a windows path contains any invalid characters. The only thing it does is import and call another package, is-invalid-path, and inverses its output.

He has a package called alphabet that only exports an array with all the letters of the alphabet. There’s a package that provides a list of phrases that could mean “yes.” He has a package (ansi-wrap) to wrap text in ANSI color escape codes, then he has separate packages to wrap text in every color name (ansi-red, ansi-cyan, etc).

To me, 1400 projects is just an insane number, and it’s only possible because they are all so trivial. To me, it very much looks like the work of someone who cares a lot about pumping up his numbers and looking impressive. However the JavaScript world also extolled the virtues of these types of micro packages at some point so what do I know.

So weird that only 15% of Steam sessions are using controllers. I thought everyone had a controller. Most games are just better with a gamepad.

Even if that was true, not all games have the same number of players. Counterstrike and dota 2 regularly top the most played list on steam, and are terrible with a controller. It shouldn’t be surprising that most sessions have a kb/m if that’s what people are mostly playing.

Ironically though, I could see how a misogynist might conflate the two.

She did in fact say that and your link doesn’t refute that.

Come now. She very clearly denies saying it in the interview I linked to:

Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven’t found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?

Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn’t saying that and I didn’t say that, then or ever.

If you want to claim she’s lying about her own statements, find me a direct quote of her saying it.

Andrea Dworkin was an influential feminist mainly in the '80 and '90. She was pretty clearly anti pornography, at least as it existed in her time (she died in 2005. Who knows what she might think of some of the stuff out there today). She’s also one of the most frequently misquoted feminists of all time, particularly by anti-feminists. she did not say all heterosexual intercourse was rape:

Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven’t found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?

Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn’t saying that and I didn’t say that, then or ever. There is a long section in Right-Wing Women on intercourse in marriage. My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse—it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman. I said that when we look at sexual liberation and the law, we need to look not only at which sexual acts are forbidden, but which are compelled.

The whole issue of intercourse as this culture’s penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the “all sex is rape” slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don’t think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.

It’s important to say, too, that the pornographers, especially Playboy, have published the “all sex is rape” slander repeatedly over the years, and it’s been taken up by others like Time who, when challenged, cannot cite a source in my work.

First, Dworkin has never said that and did not think that.

Second, she died almost twenty years ago my dude. Intercourse was published in '87 during the second wave of feminism. Why are you misquoting her as an example of current mainstream discourse? And even if we’re going to be talking about feminist views of the 80’s, you’re conveniently ignoring sex-positive feminism. The sex wars were like, the defining feminist debate of that era.

All well and good, but the term dictatorship here still refers to a situation where the state apparatus has complete control over the means of production, in other words a total centralisation of power. Indeed in Marxism-Leninism the dictatorship takes the form of a vanguard party forming a single party state. Whichever way you look at it, practical power resides with a very small group of individuals.

The contrast with the eventual stateless communist society, in which power would be completely decentralised, is quite striking. It’s not quite clear to me how Marxist-Leninist theory envisioned the transition from one to the other, although it seems to me there was a general feeling that central economic planning and industrialization would fairly quickly lead to the end of scarcity altogether, which in hindsight seems… very optimistic.

If you ask me, the ideals of communism mostly died around the same time as Lenin. Pretty much all communist states that have existed (and currently exist) are mainly interested in maintaining their own power structures rather than actually working their way towards the idealised communist society. Which pretty much just makes them dictatorships in the classical sense.

Regarding the cognitive dissonance required to A) value decentralization of power, and also B) support the CCP: 🤦

One of the tenets of Marxism-Leninism is that a dictatorship is required to guide the proletariat to communist society (which would be completely stateless). So the dissonance is inherent in Leninist dogma 🤷

is a mechanism for pilfering the shooters organs and selling them on the open market

I understand the sentiment (not that I agree), but this has myriad practical issues. For one, there is no open market for organs, and creating one would make the healthcare system extremely fucked for poor people. Secondly, harvesting organs basically requires the person to die in the hospital. Preferably not full of bullet holes.

collecting his life insurance

My main issue with this is that you screw over the beneficiary of the insurance, who may not have any responsibility for the shooting but could very well be harmed by not having the financial support. Imagine a shooter with a newborn child as beneficiary of the insurance policy; would it be just to take that money from the child?

I don’t really care about the declarative/imperative thing, to me how many commands you “really need” is beside the point. This is essentially the same argument as the people who say “git is not complex because you only really need checkout/commit/push, just ignore all the other commands.” This doesn’t matter when the official documentation and web resources keep talking about the other billion commands. Even home-manager has this warning at the very top of the page that basically tells you “you need to understand all the other commands first before you use this,” and “if your directory gets messed up you have to fix it yourself.”

These are exactly the same kinds of problems people have with git.

The confusion arises because there are 5 different ways to do the same thing, the non-experimental methods shouldn’t be used even though they’re recommended in the official docs

I appreciate what you’re trying to say, but you’re kind of illustrating exactly the point I was making about conceptual simplicity and atrocious UX.

Nix has the same mix of conceptual simplicity and atrocious user interface as git, but somehow magnified three times over. I’ve tried it multiple times, but could never get over the unintuitive gaggle of commands.

It would be pretty funny if GPT starts putting licence notices under its answers because that’s what people do in its training data.

protecting their content by licensing it explicitly.

You can do whatever you want, of course. But any license you put on your content here protects it less than not putting any license at all. That’s after all what licenses are for, granting people use of your content.

So you’re not so much protecting your comments, but graciously allowing them to be used for training for non-commercial purposes, where most people are greedily keeping them to themselves. I suppose that’s admirable.

That’s not quite what it means. Legitimate interest is a term from the GDPR, and is one of the legal bases on which a company may process your personal data. Essentially the company has a “legitimate interest” (i.e. reasonable purpose) for which your data must be processed.

Typical examples of legitimate interest are: fraud prevention, direct marketing, or ensuring network/information security of their IT infrastructure.

The rest of your comment is essentially correct though. Notably, the examples above are not exhaustive: legitimate interest is fairly vaguely defined. And there is a process in the GDPR to object to your legitimate interest claim. This has resulted in essentially all data collection companies claiming a generic legitimate interest on your data, and it’s up to you to object to all of them individually. This undermines the general “you must opt in to tracking” principles of the GDPR, but until privacy agencies of the EU get around to some enforcement that’s how it is.

It took some digging but I found the study. The figures are on page 23.

It’s about 53% pedestrian and 30% public transport for journeys inside the city of Paris, whereas journeys from the suburbs into the city are dominated by public transport (65-77% depending on distance to the center).

I agree with the sentiment: a lot of cooking does not require great precision, so a scale is not often necessary. but I think at that point you should be able to dispense with measuring equipment altogether and just go by feel for most things. A lot of cooking for me is throwing an amount into the pan that feels right, and I don’t see a need to measure cups of things.

If I’m baking, accuracy is necessary and I will always reach for the scale.

I guess the point I’m making is that measuring in cups represents a kind of midpoint in the precision-convenience trade-off that I just personally don’t find very useful.